Two-year clinical wear performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in posterior permanent teeth

  • Rafael Guerra Lund
  • Evandro Piva
  • Flávio Renato Reis de Moura
  • Flávio Fernando Demarco
  • Janaína de Oliveira Lima
  • Paulo Eduardo Capel Cardoso
Keywords: Dental restoration wear, Compomers, Clinical trials, Dyract AP, F2000


Aim: The aim was to compare the clinical wear of two compomers (F2000; 3M/ESPE and Dyract AP; Dentsply) placed in occlusal cavities in permanent molars within a two-year follow-up period using an indirect method of evaluation. Methods: Twenty-one patients, whose treatment plans included Class I restorations, were selected. Each patient received two occlusal Class I restorations in permanent molars. One and 2 years after placement of the restorations, the 21 teeth restored with each material were submitted to wear evaluation. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken and casts were made (baseline, 1 year and 2 years). The casts were classified by comparative evaluation using sets of 18 calibrated standard models (0 to 900 ìm), according to Leinfelder’s indirect method. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used for comparisons between the evaluations for the same material and between materials for each evaluation period, respectively. Results: The occlusal wear was higher after 2 years than after 1 year (p<0.001). The t-test demonstrated that the wear values, after 1 year, were similar for both compomers (F2000=17.6 ìm and Dyract AP=12.8 ìm). However, after 2 years, F2000 restorations (40.6 ìm) suffered significantly more wear (p<0.05) than Dyract AP restorations (29.8 ìm). Although compomers performed similarly after 1 year, Dyract showed less occlusal wear after 2 years. All occlusal Class I compomer restorations presented more occlusal wear after 2 years, but were considered as clinically acceptable within the evaluation period. Conclusions: The mean wear values found for both compomers do not indicate the need for either repair or replacement of the restorations.


1. McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 587-9.
2. Blackwell G, Kase R. Technical characteristics of light curing glass-ionomers and compomers. Academy of dental materials proceedings of conference on clinically appropriate alternatives to amalgam: biophysical factors in restorative decisionmaking. Acad Dent Mater Proc.1996; 9: 77-88.
3. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J. 2000; 189: 93-7.
4. Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24: 465-79.
5. Garcia-Godoy F. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars. Dent Clin North Am. 2000; 44: 541-70.
6. Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AF, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM et al. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24- month results. J Dent. 2006; 34: 381-8.
7. Huth KC, Manhart J, Selbertinger A, Paschos E, Kaaden C, Kunzelmann KH et al. 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth. Am J Dent. 2004; 17: 51-5.
8. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years. Am J Dent. 2006; 19: 61-6.
9. Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO. Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater. 1992; 8: 305-9.
10. Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD. Correlation of M-L, Leinfelder, and USPHS clinical evaluation techniques for wear. Dent Mater. 1990; 6: 151-3.
11. Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res. 1999; 33: 387-92.
12. Peters TC, Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen FW. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 1-year results. Am J Dent. 1996; 9: 83-8.
13. Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, Peters TC. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent. 1998; 11: 143-8.
14. Cehreli ZC, Altay N. Three-year clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite in minimally invasive occlusal cavities. J Dent. 2000; 28: 117-22.
15. Demirci M, Sancakli HS. Five-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities. Am J Dent. 2006; 19: 41-6.
16. de Moura FR, Piva E, Lund RG, Palha B, Demarco FF. Oneyear clinical evaluation of two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in posterior permanent teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 6: 157-62.
17. Luo Y, Lo EC, Fang DT, Smales RJ, Wei SH. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results. Am J Dent. 2002; 15: 403-6.
18. Piva E, Meinhardt L, Demarco FF, Powers JM. Dyes for caries detection: influence on composite and compomer microleakage. Clin Oral Investig. 2002; 6: 244-8.
19. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin modified. Glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995; 126: 1245-53.
20. Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N. Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Project 2-95. Int Dent J. 2001; 51: 117-58.
21. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent. 2005; 18: 75-81.
22. Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH. Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 277-85.
23. Hicks J, Garcia-Godoy F, Donly K, Flaitz C. Fluoride-releasing restorative materials and secondary caries. Dent Clin North Am. 2002; 46: 247-76, vi.
24. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004; 29: 481-508.
25. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. JDent. 2006; 34: 427-35.
26. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 63-70.
27. Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Rekow ED, Wilder AD, Heymann HO. Confirmation of Leinfelder clinical wear standards. Dent Mater. 1994; 10: 11-8.
28. Perry R, Kugel G, Kunzelmann KH, Flessa HP, Estafan D. Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131: 1472-7.
29. ADA. American Dental Association. Council on Scientific Affairs. Acceptance Program Guidelines Restorative Materials. Chicago: ADA; 1996.
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>